Composition for affixing a colorant to a surface, protecting a surface, and providing wear resistance to a surface

ABSTRACT

A composition includes a first solvent, a second solvent, a first surfactant for maintaining a dispersion of at least one of the first solvent and the second solvent, a first film forming polyurethane dispersion, a second film forming polyurethane dispersion, and a second surfactant for maintaining at least one of the first film forming polyurethane dispersion and the second film forming polyurethane dispersion.

CLAIM OF PRIORITY

This application is a continuation application of copending U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 13/645,768, filed on Oct. 5, 2012, and published asU.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0099446 A1.

BACKGROUND

1. Field of the Invention

Our invention relates to a composition and a method of using such acomposition. More specifically, our invention relates to a sealantcomposition that is useful in a process of applying a colorant to asurface, such as carpet, with the composition also being effective toprovide protection to the surface and being effective to impart wearresistance to the surface.

2. Background

Coloring compositions have been developed to enable consumers to makepersonalized designs and patterns in carpet. Such carpet coloringcompositions, for example, allow consumers to rejuvenate a worn or fadedcarpet surface with new colors. Thus, carpet coloring compositionspresent an attractive consumer product. Examples of such carpet coloringcompositions are sold by the assignee of the present application underthe tradename VECCO™.

Most carpet coloring compositions comprise one or more colorant(s) thatinclude a coloring agent, such as dyes, toners, powder paints, inks,etc. These coloring compositions, by themselves, will not generallyadhere or affix to most types of carpet. Therefore, after a coloringcomposition is applied to a carpet surface, it often necessary to usesome process to permanently affix the coloring composition to thecarpet. Often, a sealant composition is used, with the sealantcomposition being applied to the coloring composition so as to affix thecoloring composition to the carpet surface. When applied to a carpetsurface, however, the sealant composition often has the side effect ofattracting dirt or other undesirable matter. Thus, carpet coloring kitsoften include instructions that indicate that the sealant should only beapplied to the portion of the carpet to which the colorant is applied.Further, some carpet coloring kits include templates for a consumer touse in order to prevent the sealant composition from spreading to theportions of the carpet surface that do not receive the colorant.

There are many known products for protecting the color of a carpetsurface and for repelling dirt from the carpet surface. Two examples ofsuch carpet protecting products are SCOTCHGARD™ Carpet and Rug Protectorby 3M Company of St. Paul, Minn., and VECTRA® carpet spray by VectraSpray of Atlanta, Ga. Other types of coatings that are often applied toa coloring composition that is sealed to a carpet are protectivecoatings. Such protective coatings may, for example, add durability tocolored carpet so as to reduce fading of the color over time. Thecoloring composition protective coatings may also reduce the attractionof dirt or other undesirable matter on the carpet, including reducingthe incidence of resoiling of the uncolored regions of the carpet due tothe residual sealant.

Besides accumulating dirt and other undesirable matter, wearing fromtraffic is another way in which the appearance of carpet can degradeover time. In many cases, clear differences in both colored andnon-colored portions of a carpet surface can be seen over time betweenhigh traffic areas of a carpet and lower traffic areas. Such differencesare generally considered to be unattractive.

It would be beneficial, therefore, to provide a composition thatcombines the functions of sealant compositions and protective coatings.That is, it would be beneficial to provide a composition that can bothseal a colorant that is applied to a carpet surface, and alsosubsequently protect the carpet by reducing fading of the color overtime and preventing resoiling. It would further be beneficial to providea composition that imparts wear resistance to both colored andnon-colored portions of a carpet surface.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to one aspect, our invention provides a composition thatincludes a first solvent, a second solvent, and a first surfactant formaintaining a dispersion of at least one of the first solvent and thesecond solvent. The composition also includes a first film formingpolyurethane dispersion, a second film forming polyurethane dispersion,and a second surfactant for maintaining at least one of the first filmforming polyurethane dispersion and the second film forming polyurethanedispersion.

According to another aspect of our invention, a composition is providedthat includes about 4 wt. % of a first solvent and about 4 wt. % of asecond solvent. The composition also includes about 0.02 wt. % of afirst surfactant for maintaining a dispersion of at least one of thefirst solvent and the second solvent. The composition further includesabout 5 to about 8 wt. % of a first film forming polyurethanedispersion, about 4 to about 5 wt. % of a second film formingpolyurethane dispersion, and about 0.5 wt. % of a second surfactant formaintaining at least one of the first film forming polyurethanedispersion and the second film forming polyurethane dispersion. Thebalance of the composition includes at least one of a pH buffer, anantibacterial, an antifungal, a free radical scavenger, a UV lightabsorber, and a carrier.

According to another aspect of our invention, a method is provided forsealing a colorant to carpet. The method includes applying the colorantto the carpet, applying a composition that coalesces and causes thecolorant to flow onto fibers of the carpet, and drying the colorant andthe composition. The composition is formulated to form a topcoat, suchthat upon drying the topcoat has a hard component and a soft component.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 1C show photographs of carpet fibers as part of asimulated wear test.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Our invention relates to a protective sealant composition that is usefulin a process of applying a colorant to the surface of a substrate,useful in protecting the surface from fading over time, and also usefulin imparting a wear resistance to the surface. In particular, theprotective sealant composition will be described in the context ofapplying a colorant to a carpet. As will be readily appreciated by thoseskilled in the art, however, the protective sealant may be used withother types of substrates, such as a rug, upholstery, furniture, etc.Moreover, in the examples below, the sealant composition tests wereconducted with polyester fiber carpeting. The protective sealantcomposition, however, is not limited to being used with any particulartype of carpet, and in fact, can be used with numerous types of carpet.

In one embodiment, a composition is provided that both seals colorantsand provides a protective coating for the carpet or other substrate towhich the composition is applied, and also provides wear resistance tothe surface to which the composition is applied. The combination ofsealing, protecting, and imparting wear resistance is beneficial formany reasons. For example, the dual functionality of a protectivesealant composition eliminates at least one application step that isrequired if separate sealing and protecting compositions are used.Moreover, wear resistance can also be imparted at the same time, therebyeliminating the need for further treatment steps.

As another example of the benefit from the combined protecting, sealing,and wear resistance functions, it has been found that some sealantcompositions by themselves will attract dirt or other matter when walkedupon, i.e., resoiling. Therefore, users are often instructed to applysuch sealant compositions to a specific area, for example, with atemplate. Due to the protective functionality, the protective sealantcomposition described herein can be applied to both a portion of asurface with colorant and a portion of a surface without colorant. Itfollows that a resulting benefit from the application to portions of thesurface without colorant is that the protective portion of thecomposition prevents resoiling in the non-colored portions of thesurface.

Without being bound by any theory, we believe that the protectivesealant compositions described herein function in a sequential manner soas to first cause colorant particles to coalesce and to flow into a thinfilm on the surface to which the colorant and protective sealantcomposition are applied, e.g., carpet fibers. Afterwards, uponevaporation of the evaporative polymer solubilizing material, theremaining protective sealant composition forms a topcoat coating on thesurface to which the protective sealant composition is applied. Thefinal result is a polymeric material that has been permanently affixedto the surface, with a topcoat being formed on the surface. Theprotective sealant composition described herein is formulated such thatthe topcoat has both a hard component and a soft component. Thecombination of hard and soft components in the topcoat provides abalance of durability and resoil resistance in the surface to which thecomposition is applied. More specifically, the soft topcoat componentprovides durability and resistance to impact, abrasion, and other wearand tear. At the same time, the hard topcoat component providesresistance to resoiling. Still further, the formulation of thecomposition imparts a certain amount of wear resistance to the surface.

An example of a protective sealant composition according to theinvention may include a first film forming dispersion, a second filmforming dispersion, one or more solvents, and one or more surfactants.The sealant and protectant composition may include additionalcomponents, such as pH buffers, antibacterials, antifungals, freeradical scavengers, and UV light absorbers. Each of these constituentsof the protective sealant composition will be described in detail below.

The combination of film forming dispersions of the protectant sealantcomposition form the above-described topcoat on the surface, uponevaporation of the evaporative solubilizing material in the composition.In a particular embodiment, the composition includes first and secondfilm forming polyurethane dispersions. One of the polyurethanedispersions functions to form the above-described soft component, whilethe other of the polyurethane dispersions functions to form the hardcomponent in the topcoat of the applied composition.

Specific examples of film forming polyurethane dispersions that providethe soft topcoat component include aromatic and aliphatic polyurethaneresin solutions and aqueous polyurethane dispersions. More specifically,aliphatic polyester-polyether polyurethane dispersions sold under thetradename IMPRANIL® by Bayer MaterialScience of Leverkusen, Germany canbe used as a constituent in the protective sealant composition, such asIMPRANIL® DLU and IMPRANIL® DLC-F. Another nonlimiting example isIMPRANIL® DLP, also by Bayer MaterialScience.

Specific examples of film forming polyurethane dispersions that providethe hard topcoat component in the topcoat include aliphatic, anionicpolyurethane dispersions, such as those sold under the tradenameBAYHYDROL® by Bayer MaterialScience, with a specific example beingBAYHYDROL® UH 2558. Another nonlimiting example includes BAYHYDROL® UH2557, also by Bayer MaterialScience.

In conjunction with the polyurethane dispersions, the protective sealantcomposition may include one or more surfactants for maintaining thedispersions. For example, when an aliphatic polyester-polyetherpolyurethane dispersion such as IMPRANIL® DLU is used, a sodium laurylsulfate surfactant may be included in the composition, such as thesurfactant sold under the tradename STEPANOL® WA-EXTRA PCK by StepanCompany of Northfield, Ill.

The protective sealant composition also includes a solvent fordissolving the colorant particles and/or thermoplastic resin containedin the colorant. The dissolved colorant then flows onto and/or into thesubstrate to which the protective sealant is applied. In the case ofcarpeting, the particles of colorant dissolved in the film may flow intothe recesses or crevasses in the carpet fibers, and possibly penetrateinto the carpet fibers, thereby forming a thin, even coating on thefibers. The solvent is evaporated by drying subsequent to theapplication of the protective sealant composition.

Examples of solvents that are useful in the protective sealantcomposition include polar and/or nonpolar solvents, such as thosedisclosed in the Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties, Smallwood, I.M. 1996, Elsevier. Such solvents include, for example, water, aliphatichydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbon solvents suchas aliphatic alcohols, other alcohols, glycol ethers, pyrrolidone,nitrated and chlorinated solvents such as chlorinated hydrocarbons,ketones, ethers, and esters. Other useful solvents include acetone,amines, benzyl acetate, phenols, and the organic sulfone or sulfoxidefamilies including dimethyl sulfoxide. Any solvent may be selected thatis appropriate for the colorant as long as the solvent acts to aid inaffixation. Illustrative solvents contemplated include, for example,those available from The Dow Chemical Company of Midland, Mich. underthe CARBITOL®, CELLOSOLVE®, DOWANOL®, and PROGLYDE® trade namesincluding, for example, diethylene glycol ethyl ether available from DowChemical as CARBITOL®, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether available fromDow Chemical as Butyl CARBITOL®, ethylene glycol monohexyl ether,available from Dow Chemical as Hexyl CELLOSOLVE®, ethylene glycolmonoethyl ether acetate available from Dow Chemical as Ethyl CELLOSOLVE®Acetate, ethylene glycol n-butyl ether acetate available from DowChemical as Butyl CELLOSOLVE®. Acetate, propylene glycol monomethylether acetate available from Dow Chemical as DOWANOL® PMA, dipropyleneglycol monomethyl ether acetate available from Dow Chemical as DOWANOL®DPMA, dipropylene glycol mono(n-butyl)ether available from Dow Chemicalas DOWANOL® DPnB, dipropylene glycol propyl ether available from DowChemical as DOWANOL® DPnP glycol ether, propylene glycol diacetateavailable from Dow Chemical as DOWANOL® PGDA, propylene glycol methylether available from Dow Chemical as DOWANOL® PM, propylene glycoln-butyl ether available from Dow Chemical as DOWANOL® PNB, dipropyleneglycol methyl ether available from Dow Chemical as DOWANOL® DPM,ethylene glycol phenyl ether available from Dow Chemical as DOWANOL®EPH, dipropylene glycol dimethyl ether available from Dow Chemical asPROGLYDE® DMM glycol diether. Additional solvents include ethyleneglycol diacetate and ethyl lactate available from Purac under thePURASOLV® EL tradename. Still further solvents include diethylene glycolmono propyl ether available from Eastman Chemical Company of Kingsport,Tenn., under the EASTMAN® DP trade name. Other examples of solventsinclude ester alcohols, such as 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane 1,3-diolmonoisobutyrate sold under the tradename TEXANOL™ by Eastman ChemicalCompany.

Combinations and mixtures of the above-described solvents may also beused. Examples of solvent mixtures useful with the present inventioninclude mixtures of hexyl cellosolve and ethyl lactate, mixtures ofbutyl carbitol and propylene glycol diacetate, mixtures of hexylcellosolve, propylene glycol diacetate, and ethyl lactate, mixtures ofhexyl cellosolve, propylene glycol diacetate, dipropylene glycolmonobutyl ether, and mixtures of propylene glycol diacetate anddipropylene glycol monobutyl ether. The mixtures may also include anyother solvent or additive that is compatible with affixing the colorantto the surface. In a specific embodiment, the protective sealantcomposition includes the combination of 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane 1,3-diolmonoisobutyrate (TEXANOL™) and dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether(DOWANOL® DPnB glycol ether).

In another embodiment, setting solutions may act as solubilizing agentsor sealants and may incorporate one or more solvent systems, whichinclude one or more glycol solvents capable of solubilizing at least oneof a polymer or a resin. Solvent systems may further include additionalcomponents to facilitate formulation, as well as functional, dispersant,and storage properties of the solvent system or the solubilizing agentsor sealants. Non-limiting examples of additional components that may beincluded in contemplated solvent systems include polar and/or nonpolarsolvents, water, wax, hydrocarbons, ethanol, phosphorous esters, benzylalcohol, isopropyl alcohol, diacetone alcohol, ethyl lactate, a nitratedsolvent, a chlorinated solvent, a chlorinated hydrocarbon, a ketone, anester, acetone, an amine, benzyl acetate, a phenol, an organic sulfone,and dimethyl sulfoxide.

In conjunction with the solvent system, the protective sealantcomposition may include one or more surfactants to disperse anyinsoluble solvents in the rest of the composition. Examples of suchsurfactants include acrylic polymers and copolymers, for example,hydrophobically-modified acrylic copolymers. Examples of surfactantsthat may be used include CARBOPOL®-type polymers including PEMULEN™polymers available from Lubrizol Company of Wickliffe, Ohio, such asPEMULEN™ 1622 and PEMULEN™ TR-2, which are polyacrylic acid/methacrylateblock copolymers. Additional suitable surfactants include ARISTOFLEX®AVC available from Clariant Company of Charlotte, N.C.

The protective sealant composition may also include corrosion inhibitorssuch as one or more pH buffers. For example, when the protective sealantcomposition is to be dispensed using an aerosol canister, thecomposition may include pH buffers such as potassium phosphate dibasicand potassium phosphate monobasic. Surprisingly, we have found thatinclusion of the potassium phosphate dibasic and potassium phosphatemonobasic buffers has tended to provide certain embodiments of theresultant formulation with a relatively high stability. Those skilled inthe art will recognize numerous other pH buffers that could be used.

The protective sealant composition may further include preservativessuch as biocides. Examples of such biocides include antifungals andantibacterials. More specific examples include isothiazolinone-basedantifungals, such as 3-iodo-2-propynl butyl carbamate sold under thetradename ACTICIDE® available from Thor Specialties, Inc., of Trumbull,Conn., and oxazolidine antibacterials, such as the4,4-dimethyloxazolidine-based biocide sold under the tradename BIOBAN™CS-1135 by the Dow Chemical Company of Midland, Mich. Those skilled inthe art will recognize the numerous other preservatives that could beincluded in the protective sealant composition.

The protective sealant composition may still further include lightstabilizing additives to filter harmful UV light and/or act as freeradical scavengers. Examples of such additives are sold under thetradename TINUVIN® Ultraviolet Light Absorbers (UVA) and Hindered-AmineLight Stabilizers (HALS) by the BASF Corporation of Ludwigshafen,Germany. In particular embodiments, TINUVIN® 123-DW(bis(1-octyloxy-2,2,6,-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl)sebacate) and TINUVIN®400-DW (aqueous dispersion of a 2-hydroxy-phenyl-s-triazine (HPT)) maybe used.

In some embodiments, fragrances, cross-linking agents, silicones(fillers), and the like, or combinations thereof may be added to thecomposition.

In addition to the above-described constituents, the protective sealantcomposition may include a carrier. In certain embodiments, the carrieris water, or more specifically, deionized water. Of course, thoseskilled in the art will recognize that other carriers with the sameproperties as water could be used, or still other carriers withdifferent properties could be used with the composition, depending onthe particular formulation of the composition.

The protective sealant composition may be applied via a spray, forexample, from an aerosol dispensing device. In such a dispensing device,a propellant gas may be added as a constituent to the composition. Aspecific example of a propellant gas is nitrogen. Of course, othercompressed gases may alternatively be used, and further, in otheraerosol systems, the composition may be dispensed with a liquefied gas.Those skilled in the art will further recognize that alternativeapplication systems may be used to apply the protective sealantcomposition, such as a system that sprays the composition without anypropellant.

An exemplary formulation of a composition according to an embodiment ofthe invention is shown in Table 1. This composition will be referred toas Composition A.

TABLE 1 Composition A Weight Constituent Percent Function aliphatic 8.00film forming polyurethane polycarbonateester- dispersion for bindingpolyether colorant to polyurethane dispersion carpet - forms soft(IMPRANIL ® DLU) topcoat component aliphatic, anionic 4.00 film formingpolyurethane polyurethane dispersion dispersion for binding (BAYHYDROL ®UH 2558) colorant to carpet - forms hard topcoat component2,2,4-trimethyl pentane 1,3- 4.00 solvent for coalescing and flowingdiol monoisobutyrate colorant particles into carpet (TEXANOL ™) fibersdipropylene glycol 4.00 solvent for coalescing and flowing n-butyl ethercolorant particles into carpet (Dowanol ™ DPnB fibers glycol ether)polyacrylic 0.02 polymeric surfactant to disperse acid/methacrylateblock insoluble solvent copolymer (PEMULEN ™ TR-2, PEMULEN ™ 1622)sodium lauryl sulfate 29% 0.5 surfactant for maintaining (STEPANOL ® WA-polyurethane dispersions EXTRA PCK) potassium phosphate dibasic 0.24 pHbuffer potassium phosphate 0.24 pH buffer monobasic oxazolidine 76.2%0.15 antibacterial (BIOBAN ™ CS-1135) 3-iodo-2-propynl butyl 0.05antifungal carbamate, 20% (ACTICIDE ® IPS 20) bis (1-octyloxy-2,2,6-0.06 free radical scavenger tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate (TINUVIN ®123 DW) aqueous dispersion of a 2- 0.06 UV light absorberhydroxy-phenyl-s-triazine (HPT) (TINUVIN ® 400 DW) deionized water78.133 carrier nitrogen 0.547 propellant

A second exemplary formulation of a composition according to anembodiment of the invention is shown in Table 2. This composition willbe referred to as Composition B.

TABLE 2 Composition B Weight Constituent Percent Function aliphatic 5.00film forming polyurethane dispersion polycarbonateester- for bindingcolorant to polyether carpet - forms polyurethane dispersion softtopcoat component (IMPRANIL ® DLU) aliphatic, anionic 5.00 film formingpolyurethane dispersion polyurethane dispersion for binding colorant(BAYHYDROL ® UH 2558) to carpet - forms hard topcoat component2,2,4-trimethyl pentane 1,3- 4.00 solvent for coalescing diolmonoisobutyrate and flowing (TEXANOL ™) colorant particles into carpetfibers dipropylene 4.00 solvent for coalescing glycol and flowingn-butyl ether colorant particles (Dowanol ™ DPnB into carpet fibersglycol ether) polyacrylic 0.02 polymeric surfactant to disperseacid/methacrylate block insoluble solvent copolymer (PEMULEN ™ TR-2,PEMULEN ™ 1622) sodium lauryl sulfate 29% 0.5 surfactant for maintaining(STEPANOL ® WA- polyurethane dispersions EXTRA PCK) potassium phosphatedibasic 0.24 pH buffer potassium phosphate 0.24 pH buffer monobasicoxazolidine, 76.2% 0.15 antibacterial (BIOBAN ™ CS-1135)3-iodo-2-propynl butyl 0.05 antifungal carbamate, 20% (ACTICIDE ® IPS20) bis (1-octyloxy-2,2,6- 0.06 free radical scavengertetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate (TINUVIN ® 123 DW) aqueous dispersionof a 2- 0.06 UV light absorber hydroxy-phenyl-s-triazine (HPT)(TINUVIN ® 400 DW) deionized water 80.133 carrier nitrogen 0.547propellant

As will be readily appreciated by those skilled in the art, theformulations of Compositions A and B shown in Tables 1 and 2 could bevaried without changing the properties of the composition, and whilestill obtaining the same results in the tests as described below.Similarly, constituents that provide the same properties as thespecifically-named constituents could be substituted without changingthe properties of the composition.

EXAMPLES

Protective Sealant Compositions A and B were tested to evaluate theability of the compositions to seal colorant to carpet, to evaluate thedurability to the sealed colorant, and to evaluate the ability of thecompositions to prevent resoiling on the carpet. In the tests,Compositions A and B were compared to a third composition that will bereferred to herein as Comparative Composition A. Comparative CompositionA was formulated differently from Compositions A and B in thatComparative Composition A did not include a film forming polyurethanedispersion that formed a hard topcoat component in the final sealedproduct. Additionally, Comparative Example Composition A included aplasticizer that could act to soften the carpet fibers in order topromote adhesion with the colorant particles. Comparative Composition Aconsisted of 81.235 wt. % deionized water, 4 wt. % TEXONAL™, 2 wt. %UNIPLEX 809® (PEG-400 di-2-ethyl-hexoate—the plasticizer) made by UnitexChemical Corporation of Greensboro, N.C., 0.075 wt. % PEMULEN™ TR-2,0.24 wt. % potassium phosphate dibasic, 0.24 wt. % potassium phosphatemonobasic, 11 wt. % IMPRANIL® DLU, 1.06 wt. % Eastman AQ™ 55S polymer (awater soluble sulfopolyester made by Eastman Chemical Co.), 0.15 wt. %BIOBAN™ CS-1135, and 0.547 wt. % nitrogen gas.

The performance of each of Compositions A and B was also compared to theperformance of products marketed as carpet protecting sprays. One of theproducts was VECTRA® carpet spray made by Vectra Spray of Atlanta, Ga.,referred to as Comparative Composition B. The second product wasSCOTCHGARD™ Carpet and Upholstery Protector manufactured by 3M Companyof St. Paul, Minn., referred to as Comparative Composition C.

The colorant used for the tests was a VECCO™ sage-colored carpetcolorant manufactured by S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., of Racine, Wis.VECCO™ is a uniform distribution of colorant particles in a resin thatis suspended in a liquid. A further description of this and othercolorants can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 7,727,289, which is incorporatedherein by reference in its entirety.

In some of the tests, a VERICOLOR® Spectro Non-Contact Spectrophotometermanufactured by X-rite, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Mich., was used toquantify the color changes in the carpet samples, along withcorresponding Color iQC software provided by the spectrophotometermanufacturer. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, thespectrophotometer readings can be quantified using different standards.For the tests described herein, the spectrophotometer readings wereinterpreted as CIE L*, a*, b* (CIELAB) color space, where L* representslightness, and where a* and b* represent color-component dimensions,based on nonlinearly compressed CIE XYZ color space coordinates. Thus,in the context of the present tests, an increase in L* represented alightening of the color of the sample, an increase in a* represented achange in a scale from green to magenta, and an increase in b*represented a change in a scale from blue to yellow. In other words, anincrease in L* would represent the color sample fading, and changes ina* and b* would represent shifts in the color of the sample.

The spectrophotometer readings were also used to determine ΔE_(CMC)values for the samples. As will be appreciated by one of ordinary skillin the art, ΔE_(CMC) (which is based on L*, a*, and b* values)represents the total color difference value in a system, with theΔE_(CMC) being an indicator of the difference between a sample and aparticular standard. In the context of the tests herein, ΔE_(CMC)represented the overall color difference in the carpet samples after thesimulated wearing processes described below, with the standard being thecarpet samples before the wearing processes. Note that, for all of thetests herein, a lightness to chroma ratio (1:c) of 2:1 was used for theΔE_(CMC).

As will further be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art,ΔC_(CMC) is one of the variables that is used to calculate the ΔE_(CMC),with the ΔC_(CMC) representing a change in the chroma of the sample froma standard. In the context of the carpet wearing tests described below,the ΔC_(CMC) is an indicator of resoiling of the sample, with thenegative value of ΔC_(CMC) indicating that the color is becoming darkerfrom, for example, dirt or other matter, i.e., resoiling.

In the tests involving the spectrophotometer readings, eachspectrophotometer measurement was the average of measurements taken atthree positions on each sample, with measurements being taken twice ateach location. More specifically, a first measurement was taken at aparticular location on a sample, the spectrophotometer was rotated byninety degrees, and the measurement was taken again. Thespectrophotometer was then moved to two other locations on the sample,and two measurements were taken at each of these locations. Thus, themeasurements for each sample reflect a well-established average for thesample.

Test 1—Color Durability and Prevention of Resoiling

In Test 1, the ability of each of Compositions A and B to provide colordurability and to prevent resoiling was determined and compared to thecolor durability and prevention of resoiling by Comparison CompositionA. In this test, two foot by three foot samples of carpet were obtained.The carpet was a textured cut pile polyester fiber carpet manufacturedby Mohawk Industries of Calhoun, Ga., having a 1/10 gauge, a pile heightof 0.596 inches, 8.50 stitches per inch, a certified pile weight of58.80 ounces, a total weight of 93.23 ounces, and a density of 3552ounces/cubic yard.

The above-described VECCO™ sage-colored colorant was applied to thecarpet samples. A procedure was used to ensure that each sample receivedapproximately the same amount of colorant and that the colorant wasapplied in the same pattern on each sample. More specifically, about 1g/in² of formula (about 0.05 g/in² of colorant particle) was applied toeach sample. Further, templates were used to ensure that the colorantwas applied in the same pattern on the samples.

After the colorant had dried, the compositions to be tested were appliedto the colored carpet samples. About 1 g/in² of the compositions (about0.05 g/in³ of sealant particle) was applied to each sample. A consistentamount of composition was applied to each of the carpet samples throughthe use of a developed procedure. The sealed samples were left to dryfor ten days after application of colorant and sealant, prior to furthertesting.

The carpet samples treated with the compositions were then walked on inorder to simulate actual wear and tear on the carpet. Specifically,30,000 footsteps were taken over the prepared samples. The 30,000footstep test was conducted according to protocol developed from ASTM D6119-D “Standard Practice for Creating Surface Appearance Changes inPile Yarn Floor Covering from Foot Traffic.” In the tests, carpet trackswith the carpet samples were created, and a motion sensor was used tomonitor the progress of walkers stepping on each sample over the courseof six days until 30,000 steps were taken on each of the samples.

To simulate carpet cleaning, 600 vacuum strokes were given to eachsample during the course of the 30,000 footstep test, with approximately100 vacuum strokes being applied during each day of the footstep test.The vacuum cleaner was, for example, a HOOVER® WINDTUNNEL® T-SERIES™Model #UH70120, made by The Hoover Company of Glenwillow, Ohio, or asanother example, a POWERFORCE® Turbo Vacuum, Model 6585, made byBissell, Inc. of Walker, Mich. was used. A procedure was developed so asensure that consistent vacuum stroking was used on each sample.

Readings were taken with the above-described spectrophotometer (i)before the walking and vacuuming, (ii) after 15,000 steps, and (iii)after 30,000 steps, with the readings being taken according to theprocedures described above. The spectrophotometer readings for Test 1are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3 Composition Steps ΔE_(CMC) ΔC_(CMC) L* a* b* Composition A - 0 —— 47.52 0.20 15.61 Sample 1 15,000 4.66 −2.59 D 52.17 0.35 13.48 30,0005.44 −2.84 D 55.61 0.48 13.56 Composition A - 0 — — 46.53 0.21 16.88Sample 2 15,000 5.42 −2.77 D 52.44 0.51 13.72 30,000 5.44 −2.99 D 55.980.61 13.71 Composition B - 0 — — 42.69 0.22 15.22 Sample 1 15,000 4.04−1.70 D 49.97 0.50 12.76 30,000 5.41 −1.65 D 52.93 0.58 12.82Composition B - 0 — — 43.29 0.15 15.61 Sample 2 15,000 4.01 −1.87 D50.34 0.56 12.86 30,000 5.80 −1.84 D 54.25 0.71 12.90 Comparison 0 — —43.17 0.10 14.78 Composition A 15,000 7.25 −1.79 D 57.03 1.07 12.18

As can be seen from the results of Test 1 shown in Table 3, CompositionsA and B were effective in both sealing the colorant and preventing theresoiling of the samples. More specifically, the ΔE_(CMC) after 30,000steps was 5.44 for Composition A, and 5.41 and 5.80 for Composition B.On the other hand, the ΔE_(CMC) of Comparison Composition A was 7.25after only 15,000 steps. Without wishing to be bound by any theory, webelieve that the combination of a hard topcoat and a soft topcoatcomponent provided the combination of sealing and protection that wasfound in each of Compositions A and B, but was lacking in ComparisonComposition A. In sum, Test 1 shows that Compositions A and B can eachseal and protect a colorant applied to a polyester fiber carpet suchthat, after the carpet is walked on by 30,000 steps and vacuumed by 600strokes, the ΔE_(CMC) (1:c=2:1) for the colored portion of the carpet isless than about 6.0 and the ΔC_(CMC) is less than about −3.0 D.

Test 2—Non-Colored Durability and Prevention of Resoiling

In Test 2, Compositions A and B were tested with carpet samples to whichno colorant had been applied. More specifically, the ability ofCompositions A and B and Comparison Compositions B and C to providedurability of non-colored carpet samples and to prevent resoiling of thenon-colored carpet sample was determined. For these tests, theabove-described polyester carpet was again used.

The non-colored carpet samples were prepared in the same mannerdescribed above in Test 1, except that no colorant was applied to thesamples, and the samples were subjected to the simulated 30,000footsteps and 600 vacuum strokes in the same manner as the samples ofTest 1. For reference, a non-colored carpet sample was also testedwithout any composition being applied to the sample. The results of Test2 are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4 Composition Steps ΔE_(CMC) ΔC_(CMC) Composition A - 15,000 2.37−1.45 D Sample 1 30,000 2.49 −1.83 D Composition A - 15,000 1.95 −1.30 DSample 2 30,000 2.22 −1.99 D Composition B - 15,000 2.86 −1.15 D Sample1 30,000 2.38 −1.60 D Composition B - 15,000 2.39 −1.13 D Sample 230,000 3.01 −1.61 D Comparison 15,000 2.59 −0.93 D Composition B 30,0002.35 −1.34 D Comparison 15,000 3.11 −1.55 D Composition C 30,000 2.82−1.26 D None 15,000 3.48 −1.91 D 30,000 2.39 −1.44 D

As can be seen from the results of Test 2, Compositions A and B eachprotected the carpet samples nearly as well as the ComparisonCompositions B and C. That is, the relatively comparable ΔE_(CMC) ofCompositions A and B and Comparison Compositions B and C indicate thatCompositions A and B were nearly as effective at preventing the carpetfrom being discolored by foot traffic. Further, the relativelycomparable ΔC_(CMC) of Compositions A and B and Comparison CompositionsB and C indicates that the Compositions A and B were nearly as effectiveat preventing resoiling of the carpet. In sum, Compositions A and Bprotected the carpet samples almost as well as the compositions marketedfor the specific purpose of protecting a carpet surface.

Test 3—Ability to Seal Colorant to Carpet

Test 3 was conducted in order to evaluate the ability of each ofCompositions A and B to seal a colorant to a carpet as compared to theability of Comparison Compositions B and C to seal the colorant to acarpet.

In this test, six identical carpet samples of the above-describedpolyester carpet were prepared. Each carpet sample was twelve inches indiameter. One gram per square inch of the above-described VECCO™sage-colored colorant was applied to each carpet sample, and the sampleswere allowed to dry for several days. Once dry, one gram per square inchof Compositions A and B and Comparative Composition A were each appliedto a carpet sample. Comparative Composition B was applied to a carpetsample pursuant to its label instructions that specify the applicationof a light mist that does not saturate the carpet. Composition C wasalso applied to a carpet sample so as to cover the sample. No additionalcomposition was applied to the colorant on the sixth carpet sample.

After ten days of drying, the L*, a*, and b* readings were measured inthree locations on the colorant samples using the above-describedVERICOLOR® spectrophotometer procedure. The carpets were vacuumed for100 strokes, and then the L*, a*, and b* parameters of the samples wereagain determined, and the ΔE_(CMC) was calculated using thespectrophotometer.

The results of Test 3 are shown in Table 5 below, along with the datafor the sample that did not have any composition applied to it, and thesample that did not have any colorant or composition applied to it.

TABLE 5 Vacuum Composition Strokes ΔE_(CMC) L* a* b* Composition A 0 —43.11 0.44 16.16 100 1.53 45.56 0.38 14.78 Composition B 0 — 44.84 0.3316.76 100 1.03 46.22 0.34 15.57 Comparison 0 — 44.46 0.48 15.43Composition A 100 1.51 46.79 0.46 14.00 Comparison 0 — 50.25 0.32 15.77Composition B 100 9.05 69.30 2.36 15.37 Comparison 0 — 51.99 0.31 14.33Composition C 100 8.09 69.07 2.37 15.52 None (color only) 0 — 51.36 0.0115.86 100 8.61 69.36 2.39 15.29 None (no color) — — 68.66 2.50 15.44

The results of Test 3 demonstrate that each of Compositions A and B, aswell as Comparative Composition A, effectively sealed the colorant onthe carpet. That is, there was very little change in the L*, a*, and b*readings, and little change in the ΔE_(CMC) value before and aftervacuuming of the samples that were treated with Compositions A and B andComparative Composition A. On the other hand, Comparative Compositions Band C failed to seal the colorant, as the L*, a*, and b* readings andthe ΔE_(CMC) value for Comparison Compositions B and C changed in thesame manner as the sample to which a colorant was applied without anyadditional composition.

The results of Tests 2 and 3 collectively indicate that each ofCompositions A and B was as effective at protecting the color of apolyester fiber carpet surface and preventing resoiling in the carpetsurface as Comparison Compositions B and C, which are marketed as carpetprotecting products. Compositions A and B, however, were also effectivein sealing the colorant to the carpet, whereas Comparison Compositions Band C were completely ineffective in sealing the colorant.Quantitatively, for Compositions A and B, after the carpet is walkedupon by 30,000 steps and vacuumed by 600 strokes, the ΔE_(CMC) (1:c=2:1)value for the portion of carpet to which no colorant is applied is lessthan about 3.0 and the ΔC_(CMC) value is less than about −2.0 D, and theΔC_(CMC) of the portion of the carpet to which no colorant is applies isless than about 1.55 after the portion of carpet to which the colorantis applied is vacuumed by 100 strokes.

Test 4—Providing Wear Resistance

After a period of use, low-traffic areas of a carpet surface may appearto be different than higher-traffic areas of the carpet. Suchdifferences are usually unattractive. Without being bound to aparticular theory, it is believed that the visual differences in the lowand high traffic areas of carpet may, at least partly, be related to thefree ends, i.e., top ends, of the carpet fibers in the low and hightraffic areas, having different widths. As the carpet is worn bytraffic, the top ends of the fibers unravel and become more spread out,that is, the widths of the free ends of the carpet fibers increase.Thus, the carpet fibers in the higher traffic areas will have greaterwidths at their top ends than the carpet fibers in the lower trafficareas. It follows that the higher traffic areas of the carpet surfacewill look different than the lower traffic areas of the carpet surface.

A simulated wear test was conducted to ascertain the ability ofCompositions A and B, and Comparison Compositions A, B, and C, toprovide wear resistance to carpet in terms of the ability of therespective composition to prevent the widths of the top ends of thefibers from increasing. For this test, six samples of carpet wereobtained. The carpet was the nylon fiber carpet “Sandy Hollow IIMushroom” manufactured by Shaw's Industries, Inc., of Dalton, Ga. Eachsample was 34.5 inches by 11.0 inches, with a 1/10 gauge, a face weightof 48.80 ounces/square yard, a finished pile thickness of 0.56 inches, atotal weight of 87.0 ounces/square yard, and a density of 3137ounces/cubic yard. The free ends of the carpet fibers, i.e., the ends ofthe fibers that form the top of the carpet surface, were photographedadjacent to a ruler according to the procedure described below, and theaverage width of the fibers was found to be about 0.118 inches.

Compositions A and B, and Comparison Compositions A, B, and C, wereapplied to an area of about 190 cm² of the samples. Specifically, anamount of 114.24 grams of Composition A was applied, an amount of 108.80grams of Composition B was applied, and an amount of 108.83 grams ofComparison Composition A was applied. Note that the result was about 0.6g/cm² for these compositions. In the case of Comparison Composition B,52.27 grams was applied, and 25.52 grams of Comparison Composition B wasapplied. The amounts of Comparison Compositions B and C applied werebased on the label instructions for these products. The samples wereallowed to dry at room temperature for at least ten days. The sixthcarpet sample was not treated with any composition.

The wear on each of the prepared treated carpet samples and untreatedsample was simulated by repeatedly contacting the samples with a steelbeater bar covered with nylon. The steel beater bar was 3.0 inches indiameter and weighed about 22.5 pounds. Six rows of ⅝ inch square nylonstrips were screwed into the beater bar. Each of the samples was laidflat against the inside surface of a cylindrical drum, and the steelbeater bar was placed inside the drum. The drum was 12.5 inches inheight, had a 12 inch inner diameter, and a 12.75 outer diameter. Thedrum was closed and made to rotate at a rate of about thirty-fiverotations per minute for about seventy-two hours. Upon completion of thesimulated wearing by contact with the beater bar in the drum, the carpetsamples were removed and allowed to rest face-up on a flat surface forat least twenty-four hours.

The widths of the free ends of the carpet fibers for the wear-testedsamples were then determined. For this determination, each sample wasevenly divided into nine quadrants, and four adjacent fibers were cutfrom each quadrant. Each group of four fibers was then separated intoindividual fibers. The individual fibers were then photographed adjacentto a ruler from a distance of about five inches. Examples of suchphotographs are shown in FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 1C. As can be seen in thephotographs, the carpet fibers subjected to the wear-testing have adistinct unraveling at their free ends that can be closely measured.Note, for example, that the ends of the carpet fibers shown in FIG. 1Bhave become more unraveled than the ends of the carpet fibers shown inFIG. 1C.

The average width of the measured fibers of each sample was calculated.The results of the simulated wear test are shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6 Average Fiber Width After Wearing Change in Fiber % Change inSample (inches) Width (inches) Fiber Width Composition A 0.121 0.003 2.8Composition B 0.127 0.009 7.3 Comparison 0.133 0.015 11.4 Composition AComparison 0.177 0.058 33.1 Composition B Comparison 0.170 0.052 30.6Composition C Untreated 0.161 0.042 26.7 Carpet

The results of Test 4 demonstrate that Compositions A and B were highlyeffective at providing a wear resistance to the nylon carpet fibers. Thewidth of the free ends of the fibers treated with Compositions A and Bincreased by less than 10% (about 0.010 inches) as a result of thesimulated wear test with the beater bar. More specifically, the free endwidth of the fibers in the sample treated with Composition B increasedby about 7%, and the free end width of the fibers in the sample treatedwith Composition A increased by only about 3%. On the other hand,Comparison Compositions B and C failed to provide any wear resistance,at least in terms of the amount that the widths of the free ends of thefibers increase in the simulated wear test. That is, the widths of thefree ends of the fibers treated with Comparison Compositions B and Cactually increased in the simulated wear test compared to the amountthat the widths of the fibers increased in the untreated sample. Withoutwishing to be bound by theory, the Comparison Compositions B and C mayhave caused the free ends of the carpet fibers to be less tightly bound,and as result, subject to more unraveling and increasing width uponbeing subjected to the wear test with the beater bar.

As discussed above, the unattractive visual differences between theareas of a carpet that receive low traffic and the areas of the carpetthat receive high traffic may at least partly be related to the widthsof the free ends of the carpet fibers. The ability of Compositions A andB to greatly reduce the increase in widths of the free ends of nyloncarpet fibers upon wearing indicates that the compositions are highlyeffective at providing wear resistance to the fibers. Thus, CompositionsA and B are formulated to provide a wear resistance that maintains theappearance of a nylon carpet surface.

Tests 1, 2, 3, and 4 collectively show that each of Compositions A and Bwas highly effective in sealing colorant to carpet, highly effective inproviding durability to the sealed colorant, highly effective inpreventing resoiling of both the colored and non-colored portions ofcarpet, and highly effective at imparting wear resistance to the carpetin terms of reducing the amount that the widths of the top ends of thecarpet fibers increase when the carpet is subjected to wearing. Asdiscussed above, we believe that the combination of hard and softtopcoat components that are provided with Composition A and B may beresponsible for at least some of the functionalities of thesecompositions.

Although this invention has been described in terms of certain specificembodiments, many additional modifications and variations would beapparent to those skilled in the art in light of this disclosure. It is,therefore, to be understood that this invention may be practicedotherwise than as specifically described. Thus, the embodiments of theinvention discussed above should be considered in all respects to beillustrative and not restrictive, and the scope of the invention to bedetermined by any claims supportable by this application and theequivalents thereof, rather than by the foregoing description.

INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY

The protective sealant compositions disclosed can be used as a processof applying and affixing a colorant to a surface, such as carpeting. Byapplying, sealing, and protecting such a colorant, the perceivedaesthetic quality of the surface is improved and may extend the usefullife of the surface before the need for replacement.

We claim:
 1. A composition comprising: a first solvent; a secondsolvent; a first surfactant for maintaining a dispersion of at least oneof the first solvent and the second solvent; a first film formingpolyurethane dispersion; a second film forming polyurethane dispersion;and a second surfactant for maintaining at least one of the first filmforming polyurethane dispersion and the second film forming polyurethanedispersion.
 2. The composition according to claim 1, wherein thecomposition includes: about 4 wt. % of the first solvent; and about 4wt. % of the second solvent.
 3. The composition according to claim 1,wherein the composition includes: about 0.02 wt. % of the firstsurfactant; and about 0.5 wt. % of the second surfactant.
 4. Thecomposition according to claim 1, wherein the composition includes:about 8 wt. % of the first film forming polyurethane dispersion; andabout 4 wt. % of the second film forming polyurethane dispersion.
 5. Thecomposition according to claim 1, wherein the composition includes:about 4 wt. % of the first solvent; about 4 wt. % of the second solvent.6. The composition according to claim 1, wherein the compositionincludes: about 0.02 wt. % of the first surfactant; and about 0.5 wt. %of the second surfactant.
 7. The composition according to claim 1,wherein the composition includes: about 5 wt. % of the first filmforming polyurethane dispersion; and about 5 wt. % of the second filmforming polyurethane dispersion.
 8. The composition according to claim1, wherein the first solvent is 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane 1,3-diolmonoisobutyrate.
 9. The composition according to claim 1, wherein thesecond solvent is dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether.
 10. The compositionaccording to claim 1, wherein the first surfactant is a polyacrylicacid/methacrylic block copolymer.
 11. The composition according to claim1, wherein the first film forming polyurethane dispersion is analiphatic polycaronateester-polyether polyurethane dispersion.
 12. Thecomposition according to claim 1, wherein the second film formingpolyurethane dispersion is an aliphatic, anionic polyurethanedispersion.
 13. The composition according to claim 1, wherein the secondsurfactant is sodium lauryl sulfate.
 14. The composition according toclaim 1, further comprising: an antibacterial; and an antifungal. 15.The composition according to claim 14, wherein the antibacterial isoxazolidine, and the antifungal is 3-iodo-2-propynl butyl carbamate. 16.The composition according to claim 1, further comprising: at least onepH buffer; and a free radical scavenger.
 17. The composition accordingto claim 16, wherein the at least one pH buffer is potassium phosphatedibasic and potassium phosphate monobasic, and the free radicalscavenger is bis(1-octyloxy-2,2,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl)sebacate. 18.The composition according to claim 1, further comprising a UV lightabsorber.
 19. The composition according to claim 18, wherein the UVlight absorber is an aqueous dispersion of a2-hydroxyl-phenyl-s-triazine.
 20. The composition according to claim 1,wherein the composition includes: about 4 wt. % of the 2,2,4-trimethylpentane 1,3-diol monoisobutyrate; about 4 wt. % of the dipropyleneglycol n-butyl ether; about 0.02 wt. % of the polyacrylicacid/methacrylic block copolymer; about 8 wt. % of the aliphaticpolycarbonateester-polyether polyurethane dispersion; about 4 wt. % ofthe aliphatic, anionic polyurethane dispersion; about 0.5 wt % of thesodium lauryl sulfate; about 0.15 wt, % of the oxazolidine; about 0.05wt. % of the 3-iodo-2-propynl butyl carbamate; about 0.24 wt. % of thepotassium phosphate dibasic; about 0.24 wt. % of the monopotassiumphosphate; about 0.06 wt. % of thebis(1-octyloxy-2,2,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl)sebacate; about 0.06 wt. %of the aqueous dispersion of a 2-hydroxyl-phenyl-s-triazine; about 0.547wt. % nitrogen; and about 78.133 wt. % water.